[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-18110?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17537486#comment-17537486
 ] 

Gerasimos Kalouris commented on CAMEL-18110:
--------------------------------------------

Great, thank you

>  camel-smpp - DeliverSM handle message payload optional parameter
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: CAMEL-18110
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CAMEL-18110
>             Project: Camel
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: camel-smpp
>    Affects Versions: 3.14.2
>            Reporter: Gerasimos Kalouris
>            Priority: Major
>             Fix For: 3.14.4, 3.18.0
>
>         Attachments: image-2022-05-13-16-24-24-522.png
>
>
> As per [https://smpp.org/SMPP_v3_4_Issue1_2.pdf], the optional parameter 
> message_payload is used when:
> !image-2022-05-13-16-24-24-522.png|width=486,height=364!
> Even though DLRs, do not exceed this length, some vendors would chose to use 
> this optional parameter instead.
> The issue CAMEL-9356, tried to solve this but it did not succeed. Not sure if 
> it's a regression, but the deliverSm.shortMessage is never null [1], but it's 
> set to an empty byte array when the message payload optional parameter 
> exists. Thus the message payload is never set as shown in the below snippet:
> Snippet from SmppBinding.java
> {code:java}
>         String messagePayload = null;
>         if (deliverSm.getShortMessage() == null && 
> deliverSm.getOptionalParameters() != null) {
>             List<OptionalParameter> oplist = 
> Arrays.asList(deliverSm.getOptionalParameters());
>             for (OptionalParameter optPara : oplist) {
>                 if (OptionalParameter.Tag.MESSAGE_PAYLOAD.code() == 
> optPara.tag && OctetString.class
>                         .isInstance(optPara)) {
>                     messagePayload = ((OctetString) 
> optPara).getValueAsString();
>                     break;
>                 }
>             }
>         }
> {code}
>  
> That being said I would not alter the null checks but I would add additional 
> for the empty body (zero-length). I would like to do a PR for this bug and I 
> would like it to be merged with camel *3.14.X* (LTS) which is the version I 
> currently use. Should I do a PR based on this branch?
>  [1]This is my conclusion after integration tests, using an implementation of 
> jSMPP as the server. jSMPP would set the content to the empty message when 
> sending the deliverSm.(org.jsmpp.DefaultPDUSender#checkShortMessage) .



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.7#820007)

Reply via email to